The Sun. — London, England, 1810-01-02 00:00:00

faith and reasonable expeaations of the United Statei. Besides that they were mere conversations in a case requiring the precision and" respe& of a formal communication, it is certain that it was. nei ther understood by Mr. Pinckney, nor intended by Mr. Canning, that those conversations were so to be regarded. 'Mr. Pinckney is .ditOliCit 7 oi this point; and Mr. Canning himself; after•dechning to recapi tulate in Writing what he hadverbally remarked, sig nifi>Yd to Mr'. Pinckney,. in a letter deted-,May, 27th,, that'his obssryetions on the aubjeft . wotild' be 'more • properly made through the succeisor. of Mr. Erskine, who was about to proceed to the United Swag. • . With respect to •the instructions, on this point, given to Mre Erskine, it might be - sufficieht to re- , they . were never carried inEi execution : but it may be asked, whether it was a mark of friendly respect to the United States to employ for such a purpose a Minister with whom his Govern went had •thought propel; ptiblicly to withdraw its confidence, 'and to the peculiar - delieacy and embar rassment of whose situation you have yourself re erred, as act - taming for his not having executed the task imposed upon him . . ..• ' . I must here repeat what was suggested in my former letter, that the successor of Mr. Erskine is, the proper fun&ionary fot a proper explanation.. Nor • can I 'perceive the force of your remark,.that the de= lay incident to your arrival in the United States Ten • dered it more consistent with the friendly sentiments. of his Majeity to press the Other channels for corn municating the motives for his disavowal.. To your own rtconsideration I appeal, which in the course most ceosonant to those friendly sentiments, was not the obvious out of 'emp‘oying the new organ, gearding at the samelime against any misconstruc tion of the delay by apprising the American •Govern meat . through its. Minister of the cause - of it, , The supposition' that the delay incident toyour mission gave rise to the conversation of Mr. Canning and Mr. Pinckney, is not reconcilable to the correspondence • of thd latter, which contains no such indication. On the contrary, it distinelly spews that he was ap prised of the' intention to replace Mr. Erskine by' a successor, whom he'regarded as the proper channel for the explanatory communications, that he under stood Mr. Canning to be under the same impression, and that he learned from yourself, -.not more than two days after his 'conversation with Mr. Canning, that you were to sail for the United States , within three weeks. . Although it may not have, been your intention to have given to this.subject a posture which it would not have naturally assumed, yet such has been the tendency of, some of your. remarks, and particular ly of the conclusion you have. drawn. from the two . circumstances, Ist. That no trace of complaint from this Government against Ole disavowal appears in the records of , the British. missiop, or was distinctly announced by me in', our conferences, and 2d, that from the official correspondence of Mr, Erskine with ,his Government, it appeais, that althoughle did -not commun'cate ilc eztenso his original instructions, he submitted to me the three conditions therein speci , ted and received my observations on-each. • , . If there be ho trace of complaint against the disa svowel in the archives of, the mission, it is because this Government could-not have entered such com plaint before the reasons for the, disavoWal had been explained. and especially as. the , explanations were justly. and-confidently expected through the new . functionary. And as to the supposed reserve on Any part on this subject in our several conferences, Idid "imagine, that my repeated intimations to you of the necessity of satisfactory explanations, as to the dis avowal, were sufficient indications of the dissatis faction of this Government with respect to the disa vowal itself. ' The - stress you have laid on what you have been pleased to state as the substitution of the tertns finally .greed on, t for the terms first proposed, • has excited no small negreeof surprise. .Certain itis, that your predecessor did present for my consideration the three conditions which. now- appear in the printed docu ment--Lthat he was disposed to urge them more.than the'nature of two of them (both palpably inadmissi ble, and one more than merely inadmissible) Odd permit, and that, on finding his first proposals nu successful, the more reasonable terms comprised in the :zrrangernent respeaing the Orders in Council. were adopted. And. what, T Sir, is therein. this'to countenance the co: « usion you have drawn in. favour of the ,right of his•Britannie Majesty to disavow the - proceeding? Is any thing more common is ne gociat ions than to begitesvith a higher demand apd that tailing to descend to a lower,? 'To have, if not two,sets of instructions, 'two, or more than two grades of pro . positions in the same set of instructions, to begin' with what is • the most desirable, and to, end. with 'what is found to be admissible, in case the more de - sirlble should not be attainable. This must be ob vious to every understanding, and it is confirmed by ~ universal eXperience. . . What were the, real and entire instruions given to your predecessor is a -question essentially between him and his Government. That he liar!, or at least,. believed he had sufficient authority to con elude the arangernent, his formal assurances, doring our discussions, were such as to leave tio rootit for doubt. Ilis subsequent letter of the 15th June re-' pewing his assurances 1.0 me " that the tvrins of the agreement so happily concluded by the recent nego,'. ciation will be strictly fulfilled on the part of his Ma jesty," sion than was as to his instructions. And with a view to shew what his impressions hay...-1 been even since the disavowal, I must take the liberty of re . .ferring you fo . ,the annexed, extrae4 (See C) from his official letters of the 31st .July and of the 4th of Angtast. . , , the declaration « that ,the diSPatch from Mr.. "Palm* to Mr, Erskine, of the, 23d January, is the ,p'nly dispatch by which the cienditiens were preset - if>. p 4 to Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrange ment on . the matter tp.which it relates," is. now for the time time made to this Government. And I need Ilardly add, that if that dispatch had been communi cated at the lime of the'arrang*lit, or if it had: heen known that the propositions contained iri : it; and which were at first presented by Mr. Erskinee were the qnly ones on which he was-authorised to make an arrangement, the arrangement would not ha - .• ve heen made. •• youAs have disclaimed any authority to offer fi'9lNlations foe the disavowal, as you have been wtliidg to ascribe the want of such authority to the cpnsideratien that other ehennels hadbeen preferred 2114 as ysl.! have even considered 1 - 11 --;.ircutnstane,eS pnder which the arrangement Lock place'to be such as could only lead to a disavoWal, - and therefore as superseding..the necessity of any explanation what- I ever, it is to be *regretted, that you . had not deemed it proper to render precise - a:4d explicit, that part of 1 you letter which seems to imply'that you. had in our i t conversatations, in-relation to the atLir of the Cher sapeake, following the Words of your instructions, held out not only the manner in - which the-repara tion had been accepted, but even the form in which..l it had been.tendered, as warranting his Majesty in ; even retracting the offer of reparation, and that you I had elucidated .. the observation 'by a referenCe to the I particular . expressions at all events, put it to tally out of bis power to confirm any act containing. 'them. ' Whatever may have been your intention in this part of your conversation, or whatever may be the import of the- passage .to which I have just al luded, I have now. the honour of signifying to .you, that I am authorised. to receive in a proper form whatever explicit 'exptanatious you may choose to make with respe6t the. grounds of this part ,of the disavowal and without inquiring whether your authority be derived from instruations that have been addressed to, yourseif, .or that have devolvod on you as the successor of the Minister who bad de clined to execute them. _ _ As you have, at the same time been pleased, to Say, that his Britannic Majesty had authorised you to. renew the offer'- of , satisfaaion whiche , Mre Erskine was . instruaed to make, it Was also na-e turally expeaed that • you would in your letter . have _stated with precision in what that offer dif fered from the reparatiOn solemnly tendered by • Mr: Erskine, and accepted by the United States, and that you would have shewn in what the re paration thus tendered' differed from bis instruc-, tionse - And when I had the honour so- 'intimate that order to: avoid the misconeeptkons incident to oral.. proceedings, it was thought expedient that our further discussions ,on the present occasion. should be in the, written form, there was no part of the subje& to which that., intimation ,applied with more force than the case of the Chesapeake ; none on which it was more. desirable to avoid Mis conceptions and obtain a precise knowledge of the propositions which You were authorised to make, not only because I did . not really understand the par ticulars of the offer as distin&ly as you seem to have supposed,' but, also because, on that point,' and on that alone, you bad 'expressly 'Stated that you had propositions to make, and that you were author ised to carry them into immediate execution. On the subjea of the Orders in Council, the Pre sident perceives with sentiments. of deep reoret, that -- your instructions contemplate neither an explanation of the refusal of your Government to fulfil the arrange- , merit Of that branch of the existing differences, nor the substitution of any other plan,of adjustment, nor any authority to conclude any agreement bn th4t subject ; but merely to receive and'cliscuSs proposals that might be made to,you on the part of the United States ; and these, it appears, must include a sti-e pulation,on the part orthe United States to relin quish - the trade with the enernies' Oulonies, even in bra - riches not - hitherto interrupted by British Orders for capture, and also a sanction to the en forcing of an Act of Congress by the British navy. • Were the .way properly opened tot formal pro- . positions, fromehis GovernMent, a knoWn determi nation on the part of his Britannic Majesty to ,ad hare to.stiCh extraordinary pretensions, would pre dude the hope of success in such advances, whether regard be had to the conditions themselves; or to the disposition they indicate, in return for-the con ciliatory temper which has been evinced by the United States. • • As to the demand, in .relation to the colonial trade, it has been the less apprehended, as it is not in itself connected, nor has it, ever before been brought, into -connection, either with the case of, the Orders in Council, or with that of the Chesa peake.. And, it was reasonebly to be presumed, if the idea of such, a condition had in the first in stance proceeded from the erroneous belief that it was .not objectionable to the United States, that it' would not have .been persisted in after that error had been.ascertained and acknowledged. • 'The other demand could still less have been ap prehended. . Besides the inevitable and incalculable abuses incident to such a license to for9ign cruisers, the stipulation would touch one of those vital prio dples of sovereignty which no nation ought to have . been,expeded to 'impair. For where, would be the difference in; principle between.authorking a foreign Government to execute, and authorising it to make laws for, us ? Nor ought it to be supposed that the • sandi'ous and precautions, of a law of the United States, in the cases, of the prohibited trade in ques tion would prove inefficacious for its purpose. ,Hati,notte,ot those obstacles presented themselves to the course cerrespondingevith the sentiments and dispositions - olthe'President, I should have felt green' pleasure in giving you formal:assurances of his tea dieess to execute the CONiti r tIODA authority with which he is invested for restoring in its full extent, as . far aS it may depend on the United States, the • commercial intercourse of the two countries, and . that he would, moreover,, he disposed to,eXtend the experiinene of a friendly negociatiou to every point of difference and of mutual interest between-them; If, indeed, in the event of a successful termination of what relates to the case of tire Chesapeake, it .be ' thought that' a removal of the difficulties. arising from the Orders in Council might be facilitated by comprehending them in a general negociation, and the operation of the Orders can in the mean bc, suspended, the door might be considered as ini mediately open to, that course. of proCeeding. To such a suspension no reasonable objection can be made, if, as you have stated, the Orders in Council, as now modified, leave the trade of the United States nearly as great as it would be without the existence of such Orders, so long as France and the other Powers shall- continue their decrees, and inasmuch as a discontinuancd of their -decrees by those Powers centessedly requires an immediate and int ire revocation of the .Orders in Couocil. • That 'a suspension of the Orders, with a view to their being brought into a general. negociation; is more reasonable than a temporary submission to their authority by the :United , States with that view, is obvious from the refle6tion .that such a submission would necessarily involve a relinquishment of ;the principle which they have stedfastly asserted, wheri. as a discontinuance ut the Orders in, Coun c il, in tle present actualtat of things, would not be patible with the principles on 'which they were ori ginally founded. This principle was, as you well know, the neces sity of tetaliating,• through neutrals, injuries te ceived through a violation of their rights by another Belligerent. In the aaual state of things, and un der the actual modification of the Orders in Council prodUced by it, it is admitted by you, that the Or= • ders hive no practical gifted in abridging the corn meice of neutrals, -and can • of course have no reta liating effed on the other Belligerents. Although it cannot be allowed to be true that the Orders in ° Council are no 160 get injurious to the commerce of - the UnitedStines, it is certainly true that ihey produce no degree of injury to tl e enemies of Great Britain that can cotlntenance the retaliating plea alleged in support Of them. What, permit me to ask, .is the-degree of injury aanally accruing to the enemies of Great Britain from her fetalLiting Orders According 'to those Orders; as now modified; and mote especially tak ing into view along with them the prohibitory law of this country in relation to France; the essential difference.iletween their repeal and their existence consists in this—that in the case Of their repeal, as pledged by the 'arrangement of April,, the trade of the United States might be carried on direetly with the ports of Holland, whilst, during - their, exist ence, as at present, it is to be carried on through the contiguous and 'neighbouring ports. To your own calculations, Sir, 1 submit Whether' the ihcOn siderable area of circuit on the prices in Hol • land and in .the'cotintries snpplied through her, can : any ,longer sustain the plea of infliaing distress oh ~ an enemy, or palliate the injuries done to a friend by a proceeding 56 contrary to his sentiments of jus tice, and whic subjea his regular commerce not only to inconvenient channels, but to aft the abuses which may result f;-orn the suspicions, real Or pre 7 tended, of interested cruisers: Yob cannot but be Sensible, that a perseverance under such circum stances, in a system which 'cannot longer be ex plained by its avowed °hie& would force . an expla. nation by some object not avowed. What objed might be considered as best explaining it; is an in quiryinto which I do not permit myself to enter further than to remark, 'that in relation to the United States, it must be an illegitimate object. . It remains to make a few observations which are due to the just interests of the United States, - and which are invited by yours relating to the Orders in . Council of May last. , , . You seem to consider that measure as comprising the utmost precaution that was in the power of his Britannic Majesty-to take, for preventing losses, from his disavoWal of the engagetnent of your predecessor to citizens of the United States, who had resumed their commercial pnrsuits on the faith of that att. Wit4out• entering, into a full view of the inade!- quacy of the 'Order -in that respell, I take the libertiof T pointing, out the following instances in which it falls ,essentially short, of its declared in, tention. The Order does not provide for the important case of vessels returning with cargoeslrona the ports of Holland. 2. The•eXernprion from - interruption of vessels bound from the United 'States to Holland was re strided by that _Order to such as should have de parted prior to the 20t - ti of July, at ivhreli'dateit is not certain that the Order, which was not Officially , communicated until the 31st of that month, had even reached anyone point of the United States. So that some vessels may .have sailed between the li- Mited datii the arrival 'of the *Order in the United States, 'and. many from .distant ports must • have done so after its arrival, but before a know ledgs, of it had become general ; all proceeding on the faith of the arrangement, yet all left by the Order exposed to' captUre and - condemnation. 3. The Order does not provide for the important case vessels which had sailed on the like faith for Duteh ports -otherthan . those - of Holland. 4. It dt)s not include in its provisions the exteb sive list of vessels going indirectly from the United . States, ,but diredly frOm foreign portS, to those of Holland,.: nor vessels trading entirely from foreign ports to Holland ; and in both these instances pro ceeding on the faith of the arrangement professed to be respeded within the defined period. It is true, in these last instances the vessels, were not to be captured - without an attempt, after con trary ,warning, to proceed to those por6., But I need not remind you that the injuries incident to the delay, and to the breaking up of such voyages, cannot have been considerable, and will have result red as manifestly from the disappointed faith in the arrangement, as- in the cases specially provided' for, and consequently with all other losses fairly result- • ing from the same tonajide confidence in that a&t, 'they will fall 'within the just indemnification for ' which the principle, assumed in the Order,' is a formal pledge: To,conclo , le, Sir, with pressing upon yotar candid attention, that the least which the'President could have looked for in consequence of the disavoWal of a. transaction such as was concluded hy,yeur prede- • cessor, and carried faithfully•into effect by this Go vernment, was an explanation from yours of the disavowal, not 'through the' Minister disavowed, but through his successor—an explanation fotinded On reasons strong and solid in themselves, and pre senntl, , neither verbally nor vaguely, but in a torm comporting, with the occasion, and with the. resped 'due to the character and to the good faith of the disappointed party; that it. has been round with much concern and with net less surprise, that,you are charged with no sash explanations ; that you have'apparently wished to bring the subjects which have been formally and definitively arranged into fresh negociations, as if no such arrangement had taken place; •that one of the cases thus slighted, viz. that of the frigate Chesapeake, is a case for which reparation, not denied to be due,, had been previously so long o,;ithheld,, or rather in which 41e aggression itself has been spun mi l t to the 'present Moment, by, the continued detention of the chari n'ers, whose seizure, making a part of the original '• hostility committed against the American frigate,' must be regarded in alight analogous to a continued detention of the ship itself; that in the other case, viz. that of the Orders in Council, you are not authorised to tender explanations for the 'disavowal, or to propose any new arrangement, or to conclude a - ny agreement, but solely to receive and discuss propositions, which.might be made to you, not con- - aeaiing, at the. satne time, ,that, to, be satisfadery, t l lcY (Pust inch* two pudilionsi both inadmissible, --one altogether irrelevant to the subjea, and the. other requiring nothing less than a' surrender of 'an unalienable 'fuuEtion of the national sovereignty. • Notwithstanding these repulsive considerations,.- .such is the disposition of the President to facilitaftt a float and compiehensive account - iodation between .. the - t4o nations, that he is ready, as I have already had the honour of signifying to you, to favour any ''. 'node of bringing about so happy an event thatruay ....,.. be found consistent with the honour and the esseuk• _ ,T: tial interest of the United States. . . . . I have the honour to be, &c. _ .. (signed) K. SNIITIS, • The lion.. Francis lames Jackson. . (To be continued To-morrow.) • ~,, MAILS. AItRIV2D..-I Dublin. DUE-3 Got:enburgh, z Lisbon, 2 Waterford. PRICE OF STOCKS _ THIS WAY AT TWKLVS o'cLocx. Consols for Opening 7011 Red. Ann. - - 6g I'HE SUN. SOLEM QUIS DICi.ItE FALSUM AUDEAT? -A._......, L 0 N D 0 N, TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1810. The Marquis WELLESLEY appears daily to be come more obnoxious to the Opposition Writers ; and, unless we are grossly deceiyed with respea to the talents and to the principles of that Noble Lord, he will always continue the object of their nvete• rate hostility. If the Noble Lord had thrown his weight into the Opposition scale—if, in a period of unexampled difficUlty and danger, he had endea voured, by a captious and persevering opposition, to thwart and embarrass the measures of Government-- then indeed those columns would have been filled with his praises;which are now replete with invec tive and abuse. It is hot unentertaining to observe the - curious contradiaions which frequently appeai in thespace of 24 hours in the same Paper, respecting the Marquis WELLESLEY. At one time he is bitterly reproached for taking a satordinate office under Mr. PERCEVAL, and the next day the public are solemk- t ly assured 'that his Lordship is exceedingly a tious of the office of Prime Minister; and, to *C , the whole, the third day produces an account quarrel between !hese two Ministers, and of a cha in which one . or both of them were wounded !I There is certainly ari agreeable variety in these sort of paragraphs, and they evince great powers of invention in the Writnrs, but we should suppose that a man could hardly be found, even "among the Readers-4 the Opposition Papers, credulous enough , to be krt. posed upon by them. As the American Crl - respondence is not corn; pleated, in the continuance of bleb we submit to our Readers this day; we still deem it proper to re frain from all observations on the subjeet till we have a distina and comprehensive view of the whole subjea in dispute. Yesterday morning dispatches rs-ere received at the Office of the War and Colonial Department from LOrd,WELLINGTO - N, in Spain. A Cabinet Council was held yesterday at the Fo.. reign Office. Mr. CHARLES R.-VAUGHAN sets off 'this 'day to embark for Spain, being - appointed Secretary to the Honourable H. WELLESLEY. Mr. V. means, if possible,- to visit the brave, but unfortunate t0v... , of Saragossa, of which he speaks so highly in his lute resting narrative. • • ' CHRISTOPiIgIt MAGNAY, Esq. has been unani= mously eio.e;cd Alderman of Vintry Ward in thss, room of the late NATHANIEL NEwNHAD4, Esq. Messrs. Brander, Grant; McLeod, .Blakiston, Lewis, Tattnale, Hall, and Meek, •midshiprren of the Royal Navy, arrived in London on Tues ,- ;,:.7 last, having effeCted their escape from the prison of Givet, • in France, ;after nearly four -yeas- imprisonment in • that country: - On their way towards the coast they picked up and brought w!th (hem 'a poor British searnan with a .wooden leg, who effe&ed his escape from the prison of Arras.' • KNOWING-ONES TAKEN 7N.--A few days since a .genteel 7 /aqing fellow, calling himself Thom 111:Indeville, Went to the Shakespeare Tavern, in. Plythouth, and most completely got on the BLIND side of the landlord, by informing him thar lie harks cargo of oats, the arrival, of which he hourly ex pected from Waterford, at the .same time.:producing simples, bill of lading, fact,' every thingap neared so correct,. that Mr. Adulteration, in expec— tation of a good cnstomer,:did not tiesitAte >to ac. co , nmodate; : hirn• with :board and lodging, together with a new' great coat, &c. - In . the mean time the pretended. merchant went.constantly tot the Cusi om houseloascertain.the a rrival of the - Ahrldnta (the ship which was Said to' have the : cargo..on. . At length t4ie anival of the supposed Cap a n of the Atalanta n%as announced, and being inttuduceti, the natural inquiries respecting., the voyage, state of the cargo, &c. were made, to whjcli suitable an swers being ;returned, nothing' remained but to drink success to the. Sa,a of the." Cargo.----in the midst of their festivity, a Gentleman.from Trema ton happened to drop in, and' being shewn the sample, readily became a purchaser of the cargo; but the ship having been .represented to have 114 ••• . an unusually tedious voyage, and the crew, in con sequence, reduced to short allo . wance, an advance of cash was. proposed to bind- th e bargain and re victual. the ship,.which being unsuspectng!Y acced ed to, and the time and phlce of delivery -appointed, they took theil• departure, leaving the host and pur- • chaser .to contemplate each other on their imaoittary 4 1 a 1 a0 1 si ,